Ring Generalship - If a fighter is able to control the pace and style of the fight and impose his style on the other fighter, he is winning in the Ring Generalship category. For example: A "brawler" will try to drag a "boxer" into an inside fight by moving forward and cutting off the ring, whereas the "boxer" will try to keep the "brawler" at a distance using his legs and his jab. It is important for the judges to understand the style of each fighter to properly score Ring Generalship.

And what if the fighter adapts during the fight or enters the fight with a different game plan than normal. IMHO for a judge to base their decision on past fights is a mistake.

Very well done except for the knockdowns part. There is no rule that states you HAVE to award a fighter a 10-8 round for scoring a knockdown. In fact it is quite possible to LOSE a round while scoring a knockdown. (See holyfield-Moorer). If fighter A outlands fighter B 30-5 in the round and suffers a a flash knockdown it would be RIDICULOUS to score the round 10-8 for fighter B.

Very well done except for the knockdowns part. There is no rule that states you HAVE to award a fighter a 10-8 round for scoring a knockdown. In fact it is quite possible to LOSE a round while scoring a knockdown. (See holyfield-Moorer). If fighter A outlands fighter B 30-5 in the round and suffers a a flash knockdown it would be RIDICULOUS to score the round 10-8 for fighter B.

Keith

Absolutely agreed. Another example would be Calvin Brock vs. Jameel McCline... I think round 5, Brock battered McCline around the ring and got knocked down hard. Got back up and continued the battering. 10-9 round for McCline.

I assume you are talking about Holyfield - Moorer I, where Moorer was down in the 2nd? IMHO that round was 10-8 for Holyfield.

Absolutely agreed. Another example would be Calvin Brock vs. Jameel McCline... I think round 5, Brock battered McCline around the ring and got knocked down hard. Got back up and continued the battering. 10-9 round for McCline.

I assume you are talking about Holyfield - Moorer I, where Moorer was down in the 2nd? IMHO that round was 10-8 for Holyfield.

You are the only one then. I scored it 10-10. Moorer landed 38 punches to Holys 9. Holy also held 8 times, and did not land a single punch after the knockdown

And what if the fighter adapts during the fight or enters the fight with a different game plan than normal. IMHO for a judge to base their decision on past fights is a mistake.

As an astute boxing fan, you can observe this happening in a fight yourself, can't you? If you can, I would think that a good judge would be able to tell when this happens, judge whether or not the adaptation is successful and score accordingly. I don't see a contradiction here, good judges know what they are looking at.

Just going to throw this out as an example of how one could/should score a round...

In the final round of the Peter Quillen-Hassan N'dam N'jkam tilt, HNN was in clear control throughout the first 2 minutes and thirty seconds of the round, and outlanded Kid Chocolate by a fair margin. But in pressing the issue, he left himself open for a counter that dropped him with less than 30 seconds remaining, and was subsequently dropped against just before the final bell.

How would you score the round?Would you place greater emphasis on the two kd's and call it 10-7, or call it a 10-8 round because Hassan did much better worth throughout ninety percent of the round...?

(I went with the latter option, but I wanted to hear you take and rationale for the score)

You are the only one then. I scored it 10-10. Moorer landed 38 punches to Holys 9. Holy also held 8 times, and did not land a single punch after the knockdown

It was closer to a 10-9 round for Moorer than a 10-8 for Holy.

Keith

I watched the round again and I gotta say... I didn't feel like Evander was so dominated in that round that the knockdown didn't earn him a 10-8. But that's my opinion, and both of our scores would be legit.